>> the only problem is, we do not provide any input on the legislation. that is the problem with denying the legislation. >> ok, commissioner fong. commissioner fong: this speaks to how confusing this whole thing is. does staff had any thought to -- have any thought to -- >> point of order. aren't we in the middle of a vote? >> you are voting for disapproval? >> that made everything

complicated. >> aye or no? your vote is no. thank you. that is a tie vote. it failed. 3-3. >> i know this is a complicated piece of legislation. i appreciate all the time that everyone has put into it. given the makeup of the commission with the six members, i did not mean to ignore the wishes of the commission. i apologize if i gave that impression. i would respectfully request for the commissioners to consider the three-week continuance so we can work with individual commissioners who clearly have issues with specific pieces of

the legislation. again, i have been with the city for eight years. i know you did invested in something and you work on something for a long time. it does not mean that we cannot work on it longer. i would be more than happy to continue to work with the commissioners over the next three weeks. president chiu has been very accommodating. we will make clear that the commission can consider it up until that time, just to make that very clear. i think there is a lot, even if you do not agree with every piece of legislation, there is a lot that has the values that we all share. i hope we can move forward. thank you very much. commissioner antonini: we can try that again. commissioner borden: i will withdraw my motion. i will support a motion to

continue with direct instruction that the next hearing, comments from commissioners to work on specific areas so we could have a targeted section around those areas where people have the most issues. we could even talk more about the exception at stuff. i wanted to be a focused hearing. that would be my motion. >> you did not move to continue. it would be helpful if we could get any changes a week and had to review its. certainly, -- a week ahead to review its. i will call the supervisor's office to. it gives us a few days to make phone calls. this is what i like or dislike. commissioner moore: i want to reiterate what i said earlier. none of us wants to prolong

this. this is only a process. this is what we owe to the public. this is what i owe to myself. i did not have the proper time to understand whatç you were asking for. i will be happy to do that. there are many things at first glance that i agree with. i want to remind everybody, we opened this meeting today saying that we would not decide, that we would just have people comment. i think we are doing the right thing. you have our support. it is just three weeks of clarity and then we are done. commissioner sugaya: when we took the vote to continue the last time, it was with the idea that there would be a lot more outreach than happened over the holidays. the supervisor's office has indicated they contacted people, but i am getting the

feeling that a lot of other organizations, like the coalition, may not have had as much input as they felt they needed to have. i do not think that is going to happen in the next two weeks. they're asking for things to come to was a week ahead of time. >> i want to make sure the commissioners understand that what we would be voting on in three weeks is the department', at our recommendation to the board of supervisors. if you are in contact with the board of supervisors, make sure your contact includes aaron star and amrie -- marie. >> good suggestion. >> as much as we are working

with the supervisor's office, we are working through our staff. and we should always keep that order in mind. commissioner borden: as long as it is with staff and not each other. >> there are two additional recommendations that staff is making. that would include those also. >> yes. >> the motion for continuance, staff and the board will continue to work together on this. it is a more focused continuance on the item that the commission has concerns over. commissioner antonini. >> aye. commissioner fong. >> aye. commissioner moore. >> no. >> that motion passed 5-1.

commissioner fong. my understanding is that unique accusal for item 16. -- you need recusal for item 16. [roll-call vote] commissioner antonini: same motion, item 16. >> thank you, commissioners. the ocean -- the motion before you is for continuance of item 16. that is to be a focus continuance on that motion. [roll-call vote] that motion passed 4-1. thank you, commissioners.

commissioner antonini: there is only one more item left. let's take a 10-minute break. >> ok, the planning commission is back in session. the item before you at this time is item 18. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. before you today is a discretionary review of a proposal that would expand its structure located at the end of the residential structure. it would extend approximately 7.5 feet than the existing structure. the expansion -- the expanded

footprint is necessary to allow the stairs for the building code. a letter from the senior building inspector for the district has been included in your materials. it states it can be built to meet current building code standards. the steer expansion is subject to a variants that occurred in may of 2011. designing minister took matters under advisement. the conclusions regarding the replacement have been summarized in the met -- in the letter. it will be issued after the commission's decision regarding the request. the request is raising several issues with the application in regards to the stairs. there are some inconsistencies.

the following considerations were brought up. loss of privacy, and impact of the stairs on the open space. the department's residential design team filed the project is not create extraordinary circumstances. the stairs structure is located at 9 feet from the property line and utilize is an open design. -- utilizes an open design. it does not allow for the establishment of enclosed areas. in the proposed stairs, the building death of both adjacent properties and is not -- depth of both the adjacent properties.

this concludes staff presentation. i'm available for questions. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am peter gallagher. is that better? ok. i live next door to the subject property. i realize this is the last item on your agenda today. it is probably the least important and the smallest project, but it is important to us. it is our home, and we appreciate your attention. we believed the building permits is not in condition for consideration right now. it was posted for notification some months ago and that was

premature. we are here prematurely, i think, because this thing has been pushed ahead contrary to the code. a little history -- there are some new violations introduced. the first we knew about this project was when the variance application was posted. we did not have interaction with the honor before that. they did not approached us to exist -- with the owner before that. they did not approach us to discuss it. we'll explain our situation. the zoning administrator did not issue eight variants. he said he wanted very specific things before he would issue a variance. those things were never provided. there was no reason for him to issue a variance. since there is no variants in

place, there is no reason for the building process to go any further. [inaudible] i believe i can refer to the building code here. this is section 311 of the building code. i have underlined the relevant part here. this has been determined not to be in compliance with section 12. -- 1.2 of the planning codes. it shall be held until the application is determined to be in compliance. there are three ways that this can be taken off hold. none of those three things have happened. we are extremely surprisedç and totally taken off guard by the a 311 notification. we understood that the certain

items have to be produced before anything would happen. maybe didn't -- maybe things would proceed. none of that happened. we were shocked and tried to get to the bottom of this. çthere is a notification sectin about what happened when it is determined to be in compliance. there has to be a notification and there has been no notification. all we got was a 311 notification. that is in addition to notification required by the building code. separate from the 311 notification. i believe no decision has been made on any reasonable understanding determination, i should say. just to better understand the term "determination."

section 3 05 -- 305 -- part of a written decision has been established, etc. you cannot grant a variance until you have a determination. a determination is a written decision with five findings and the various goes into effect 10 days after the date of the written decision. there is no variant in effect. it is not even close to being in a fact. -- in effect. the variants letter was issued after this commission makes its decision. if they are needed -- if they are not even close to writing a letter and they have the evidence, why would they not just issued a variance? -- issue a variance?

i e-mail this out today. sorry about the late time. this is what the zoning administrator asked for. i will skip down to the end. i will take the matter under advisement. there is a minimum required. if the existing astaire -- stair, is ok. commissioner antonini: speakers in favor of the dr? ç>> i live in 776 green street. thank you for your time today. we are very sorry to be here under these circumstances. we have never had a conflict with our neighbors. we would never object to

anything our neighbors wanted to do. what we stand to lose his privacy. light and air. i have a picture of my kitchen window looking out at the current stairs. you can see that is my kitchen window. the stairs are going to be built in another 7.5 feet. the people going up and down the stairs will be able to look into my entire kitchen, dining room, my kids doing their homework, us eating their dinner. they can look to our dining room -- to our living room. if we are sleeping on the sofa, watching television. all of the privacy we enjoy in our small 1300 sq. ft.,. all of it is gone. we have now lost the privacy, which is really distressing.

this is a picture from the same window. that is the current stairs. it will come out and another 7.5 feet. we lose all of our privacy. there is also a light that we enjoy, but the main thing is that it is my only house and i love it and i cannot imagine not being able to have privacy in my own home. from what we understand, the project is voluntary. if they would do that, we would 100% support anything they want to do. we would give them use of our backyard to access their space. we will get them part in our driveway. anything we can do to make that happen. they want to work with our neighborhood -- we like to work with our neighbors. we have not had the opportunity to sit down with them and discuss it. we do have other neighbors that opposed the project.

they signed letters and we submitted that would be a variance. just to summarize, it is all about privacy for us. we really would like to see it the stairs prepared in similar size -- repaired in similar size. commissioner antonini: thank you. ç>> thank you, commissioners. i lived next doorç, the top floor. i moved into this neighborhood for 30 years ago in 1981. i was the first building that was condominium-ized in the neighborhood.

it was the old north beach. for years, we all worked together, including the property in question. when everybody had a problem, we would work it out. i am embarrassed to be here today. i cannot believe this. i do not believe this is an issue of safety. they brought this up at the variants, but i do not believe -- it is much cheaper than going back and doing the winding stairs. if it was really safety, they would come to talk to us. this is a unique piece of property.

it is the only building on our end of the block that does not have a garage. to go down the back steps to escape the building, he would go into their back yard and you were trapped in their backyard. you go down steps in their basement, go through a very narrow path, and come up to this door with a piece of steel that weighs a great deal of weight. they have to push that door and had it holds in order to get out. as mrs. gallagher said, if they were to come to us. it is a safe way -- the safe way for people to get out is to put a gateway between the two properties. they could go out to our garage. that would be an easy way. going out through this door is impossible. very few of the women he was

ever lived there tell me they are even able to open the door. if they were really here for safety, they would be here with an application for a building permit to change this and concrete this over. right now, it is a fire trap. this is cheaper than going through. they have had two years. thank you. commissioner antonini: are there additional speakers in support of the dr? if not, project sponsor?

>> i am the engineer of records. good evening. i would love to do what you suggested and made that door more safe to get out. i did reach out to everyone with letters and no one responded. we went ahead and look at the back stairs and it was obvious to me, looking not -- looking at -- it was obvious to me we could push out in the backyard. in essence, it was not. we're pushing the stairs and out. either case, you can see both neighbors are farther out than we are.

i would hope that every one of these winding stairs in the city gets replaced. it is a matter of safety. this is why we've right codes. -- we write codes. there are countless winding stairs all over the city that did not allow -- is an antiquated way to construct the stairs. there is a possibility to construct these stairs to present code. this type of winding stairs, as you can see here, is constructed with limited space. you see this type of stair where you live where you are constricted with space, sometimes on the side of the building.

in some cases, we have no choice but to reconstruct the stairs as this. but here, we have the opportunity to construct a safe stair. there is and issue whether the stairs would require replacement or repair. we have moved beyond this issue. we would like to get them to present date code. -- present day code. i felt we could do this without much resistance. we see the resistance being offered to buy the neighbors to the east and their opposition to their views being obstructed by illegal property line windows. you might be aware of that. i would say that we are not --

sorry -- we are not restricting their view dramatically. we are providing safe access and some of these views -- some of these windows are out farther were you will not be obstructing their view. it is from the property line window. thank you. commissioner antonini: speakers in favor of the project sponsor. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, the second speaker complained of privacy. my name is i am the attorney. they argued it would lose

privacy. from the second photograph, you that there is already a loss of privacy. when you have windows right on a property line, you're going to be able to look in the other person's window. that is pretty common in san francisco. he argued that he could not believe this was a matter of safety. as our engineer indicated, it is a matter of safety. this is not something that the owners decided they wanted to do for no reason. they did it for a particular reason. that particular reason was the safety of their tenants. that is what they were advised by their engineer and that is the only reason they are pursuing this project. thank you. commissioner antonini: are there additional speakers? if not, the d.r. requester has a two-minute rebuttal, if you

wish. >> thank you. i wanted to address the issue of safety again. their position is they have been forced to do this by the city under certain code, a section that has to do with run and rise carried they are ignoring other sections and introducing additional safety problems that do not exist in the present structure. in particular, the size of the less than the required 50 feet from the building. there is no area for egress. i have lost the statute -- here it is. california building code access of public way. it has to exit to the public way or into a proper backyard. if you can get 50 feet from the

property, 50 feet from the building on the property. you cannot get 50 feet from this building on this property. you have to go back under the building, through a heavy trapdoor, with debris falling on you, presumably. making this complied with the run and rise section of the code so that people somehow get faster or more safety down to this enclosed area makes no sense. apart from the fact that it violates the code, it makes no sense. there is a reason why you have an emergency exit, to get you to safety. making a fast exit to an unsafe place makes no sense and it is another code violation. it is swapping out one code violation for another code violation. and it is procedurally wrong